On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Or rather, had we not exported a single symbol, then the veto was unjustified?
>
> I don't remember the details, but it was presented by you as a new API.
> It was described by you as the addition of new LDAP libraries to
> httpd. And it was most certainly a change to the existing code in
> mod_ldap.
Roy, I'm sorry. Obviously I miscommunicated. It was a former API.
The proposal was to fold that behavior into a single self-contained
module. I will present this in the coming month in a manner that
conforms to your understanding of a "module" vs. an "API", such that
no individual can veto it, and the dozen+ of us can vote for it and
be forever rid of the garbage former-API constraint, ignoring those
crazy voices from the wilderness.
> If a vote is required (i.e., anyone objects), then it is a majority vote
> with minimal quorum (three +1s), as usual.
That's the page I started on, thanks for confirming! These modules
did NOT have majorities for inclusion in trunk. Tonight, one finally
does. I never believed I had a veto, only 1 vote against blind implied
consent.
> I submit that there was confusion and the right thing to do would be to
> ask politely for the confusion to be resolved by an actual vote.
> It would help if you were not being an ass about it and randomly
> accusing people of nefarious behavior just because they don't give
> a damn about this particular difference of opinion.
>
> And it isn't Graham's responsibility to run the vote.
Ah, but you see, that's the rub. There WAS a vote. A proposal was
made by Graham, a vote was held by Graham, and a DIFFERENT course of
action was followed by Graham. Amazingly, Graham ran the successful
vote, for an altogether different outcome.
That is what is objectionable; if there is anything in the past months
demonstrates psychotic behavior, it is not my objections to what had
transpired, but what actually transpired.
Quoting the private list, where there is to be no development discussion
(so ergo these comments cannot be confidential);
On 12/8/2011 7:40 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 08 Dec 2011, at 3:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> But I think we are saying the same thing... I just wanted to be
>> sure this was understood as "[poll] Potential Adoption of..." and
>> not something actually "adopted" as in your message subject.
>
> The word "proposal" means exactly that, and I haven't seen any
> misunderstanding so far from anybody.
at which point, the entire discussion went sideways once Graham adopted
the input of private@ development discussion into his next actions.
As the Chief Agent and Advocate against dev discussions happening in
private off of the dev list, I'm relying on you personally to ensure
this doesn't reoccur.